• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Allocation News: Jackson & Hattiesburg

D

DeadElvis

Hey… real radio news! A few weeks old, but I haven’t seen it here.

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before the Commission would add another signal to the Jackson market. A group called MissAla RF is proposing adding a Class A on 103.9 to Flora, MS. Tower would fit just south of the City and would send a 60 dbu (1 mV/m) over much of the metro. Still, it would be an impaired signal and would receive splash from WLEZ-LP in-town.

The Petition requires downgrade of WUSW Hattiesburg to a C0. That, it seems, won’t be a problem.

Class A WGDQ/Hattiesburg has applied to change its City of License to Sumrall, and upgrade to a C3. It looks like this will happen, as the upgrade seemingly works, and is mutually-exclusive. It is already in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at the Commission. BTW: This same NRPM proposes to downgrade WUSW to a C0, which aids in the Flora issue.

DE
 
> Hey… real radio news! A few weeks old, but I haven’t seen
> it here.
>
> A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before the Commission would
> add another signal to the Jackson market. A group called
> MissAla RF is proposing adding a Class A on 103.9 to Flora,
> MS. Tower would fit just south of the City and would send a
> 60 dbu (1 mV/m) over much of the metro. Still, it would be
> an impaired signal and would receive splash from WLEZ-LP
> in-town.

Just for clarification, is the tower going to be south of Jackson or Flora? As far as the "splash" from 103.7 is concerned, since LP stations aren't granted protection from higher-powered signals, I'd probably be more worried if I were WLEZ than I would if I were 103.9. BTW, would it be possible for WLEZ to move from 103.7 to another frequency? Picking a frequency off the top of my head, 98.1 would be a good spot for them since no other stations would be close enough to interfere. I don't think 97.7 is powerful enough to interfere.

> The Petition requires downgrade of WUSW Hattiesburg to a C0.
> That, it seems, won’t be a problem.
>
> Class A WGDQ/Hattiesburg has applied to change its City of
> License to Sumrall, and upgrade to a C3. It looks like this
> will happen, as the upgrade seemingly works, and is
> mutually-exclusive. It is already in a Notice of Proposed
> Rulemaking at the Commission. BTW: This same NRPM proposes
> to downgrade WUSW to a C0, which aids in the Flora issue.
>
> DE

What's the frequency for this station?<P ID="signature">______________
"...and the countdown continues until the neanderthals that govern college football do something about their pathetic postseason."--Tim Brando, Sporting News Radio</P>
 
> Just for clarification, is the tower going to be south of
> Jackson or Flora?

I suppose that was a bit ambiguous. It's south of Flora.

> BTW, would it be
> possible for WLEZ to move from 103.7 to another frequency?
> Picking a frequency off the top of my head, 98.1 would be a
> good spot for them since no other stations would be close
> enough to interfere. I don't think 97.7 is powerful enough
> to interfere.

Possible, but not on 98.1, it seems. There's a web page that finds possible frequencies. It seems to think 104.3 might work.

There are more sophisticated programs, but they cost money.

> What's the frequency for [WGDQ]?

93.1

DE
 
Do you know anything about this MissAla RF company? The only info I could find doing a Google search was a partner named Heather Hill of Costa Mesa, California.

While doing the Google search, I did come across what appears to be the signal coverages of WGDQ and the Flora station. You did mention that WUSW would have to drop down in class in order to accomodate 103.9. Also, while looking at WGDQ's coverage map, it's pretty much a carbon copy of WNSL's coverage, so I'm assuming they're going to use to same tower. If that's the case, would WQUE New Orleans and WBLX Mobile (93.3 and 92.9, respectively) need to drop down, too?



> > Just for clarification, is the tower going to be south of
> > Jackson or Flora?
>
> I suppose that was a bit ambiguous. It's south of Flora.
>
> > BTW, would it be
> > possible for WLEZ to move from 103.7 to another frequency?
>
> > Picking a frequency off the top of my head, 98.1 would be
> a
> > good spot for them since no other stations would be close
> > enough to interfere. I don't think 97.7 is powerful enough
>
> > to interfere.
>
> Possible, but not on 98.1, it seems. There's a web page
> that finds possible frequencies. It seems to think 104.3
> might work.
>
> There are more sophisticated programs, but they cost money.
>
> > What's the frequency for [WGDQ]?
>
> 93.1
>
> DE
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"...and the countdown continues until the neanderthals that govern college football do something about their pathetic postseason."--Tim Brando, Sporting News Radio</P>
 
> Do you know anything about this MissAla RF company?

No. I just saw the name on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. And, frankly, at this point, who they are really isn't that important. They get no special consideration later.

I haven't seen the proposed coverage for WGDQ, but I can't imagine it would be the same as WNSL, a full Class C. But, reading the NPRM, no mention was made of Mobile or New Orleans. Further, WBLX is over 500m up; they are not subject to a C0 downgrade. It looks like it'll work.

DE
 
> I haven't seen the proposed coverage for WGDQ, but I can't
> imagine it would be the same as WNSL, a full Class C. But,
> reading the NPRM, no mention was made of Mobile or New
> Orleans. Further, WBLX is over 500m up; they are not
> subject to a C0 downgrade. It looks like it'll work.
>
> DE

Looks like I was wrong--very wrong--about WGDQ's signal. The signal I see on recnet.com shows it barely getting outside of Forrest and Lamar counties. I must've confused their signal with WUSW's.
<P ID="signature">______________
"...and the countdown continues until the neanderthals that govern college football do something about their pathetic postseason."--Tim Brando, Sporting News Radio</P>
 
> > I haven't seen the proposed coverage for WGDQ, but I can't
>
> > imagine it would be the same as WNSL, a full Class C.
> But,
> > reading the NPRM, no mention was made of Mobile or New
> > Orleans. Further, WBLX is over 500m up; they are not
> > subject to a C0 downgrade. It looks like it'll work.
> >
> > DE
>
> Looks like I was wrong--very wrong--about WGDQ's signal. The
> signal I see on recnet.com shows it barely getting outside
> of Forrest and Lamar counties. I must've confused their
> signal with WUSW's.
>

Recnet's coverage proposal is a lot more stingent I find that radio-locator.com's .... recnet is more of a definite guaranteed coverage however.

Also WUSW is supposedly a C0 already according to radio-locator and recnet
(as the Flora proposal was origianlly sent in 2002 when WUSW was a c apparently)

RFLA
 
> Recnet's coverage proposal is a lot more stingent I find
> that radio-locator.com's .... recnet is more of a definite
> guaranteed coverage however.

Actually, the predictions between the two services are the same. The difference is that they are showing different sets of contours.

Recnet ONLY draws as far out as the 1mV/m (60 dBu) contour. The inner circle is the station’s City Grade (3.16 mV/m or 70 dBu). The innermost circle on radio-locator is the 1 mV/m or 60 dbu contour; the City Grade is not drawn. But, radio-locator also draws beyond the 1 mV/m, showing contours that will be less than reliable in real-world conditions.

It looks like the outermost circle on radio-locator is the 40 dbu, which really isn’t of much use. Out that far, the signal is weak, but, more importantly, is subject to rather severe co-channel interference ("CCI") on even the deadest of days on the band. When conditions are up, even the 60 dBu can suffer from CCI -- trust me; I remember my days of having CCI in my headphones when I worked mornings.

They are both very good services. They are just showing different stuff.

DE
 
> There's a web page
> that finds possible frequencies. It seems to think 104.3
> might work.
>
>
> DE
>


What is the website that you used?
 
> > Recnet's coverage proposal is a lot more stingent I find
> > that radio-locator.com's .... recnet is more of a definite
>
> > guaranteed coverage however.
>
> Actually, the predictions between the two services are the
> same. The difference is that they are showing different
> sets of contours.
>
> Recnet ONLY draws as far out as the 1mV/m (60 dBu) contour.
> The inner circle is the station’s City Grade (3.16 mV/m or
> 70 dBu). The innermost circle on radio-locator is the 1
> mV/m or 60 dbu contour; the City Grade is not drawn. But,
> radio-locator also draws beyond the 1 mV/m, showing contours
> that will be less than reliable in real-world conditions.
>
> It looks like the outermost circle on radio-locator is the
> 40 dbu, which really isn’t of much use. Out that far, the
> signal is weak, but, more importantly, is subject to rather
> severe co-channel interference ("CCI") on even the deadest
> of days on the band. When conditions are up, even the 60
> dBu can suffer from CCI -- trust me; I remember my days of
> having CCI in my headphones when I worked mornings.
>
> They are both very good services. They are just showing
> different stuff.
>
> DE
>


Thanks.. I knew it was different dbu contours but to what extent, that I didn't know...

RFLA
 
How long until this proposal reaches the actual Auction?
Any ideas?



> > > Recnet's coverage proposal is a lot more stingent I find
>
> > > that radio-locator.com's .... recnet is more of a
> definite
> >
> > > guaranteed coverage however.
> >
> > Actually, the predictions between the two services are the
>
> > same. The difference is that they are showing different
> > sets of contours.
> >
> > Recnet ONLY draws as far out as the 1mV/m (60 dBu)
> contour.
> > The inner circle is the station’s City Grade (3.16 mV/m or
>
> > 70 dBu). The innermost circle on radio-locator is the 1
> > mV/m or 60 dbu contour; the City Grade is not drawn. But,
>
> > radio-locator also draws beyond the 1 mV/m, showing
> contours
> > that will be less than reliable in real-world conditions.
> >
> > It looks like the outermost circle on radio-locator is the
>
> > 40 dbu, which really isn’t of much use. Out that far, the
>
> > signal is weak, but, more importantly, is subject to
> rather
> > severe co-channel interference ("CCI") on even the deadest
>
> > of days on the band. When conditions are up, even the 60
> > dBu can suffer from CCI -- trust me; I remember my days of
>
> > having CCI in my headphones when I worked mornings.
> >
> > They are both very good services. They are just showing
> > different stuff.
> >
> > DE
> >
>
>
> Thanks.. I knew it was different dbu contours but to what
> extent, that I didn't know...
>
> RFLA
>
 
> How long until this proposal reaches the actual Auction?
> Any ideas?
>
>
>

Anywhere from 2-5 years, if the Commission moves at the usual pace.

RFB
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom